Muslims Are Exempt From Obamacare

A good friend of mine brought this fact to light for me, though it doesn't really surprise me. A few different religions are exempt from being forced
to get health care, but as for the rest of us, we are not so lucky. Check out the link for more details. I was going to put in a few quotes from the
article, but for some reason, the page wouldn't let me highlight any text to copy, and paste.

These are the religions that are exempt from having to buy health insurance; Amish, Muslim, Scientologist, and Native Americans.

What about the other Americans that are opposed to Obamacare? We can't apply to get Opt Out, that is "reserved" for the members of the named
religions.

Originally posted by TheBeatMasta
A good friend of mine brought this fact to light for me, though it doesn't really surprise me. A few different religions are exempt from being forced
to get health care, but as for the rest of us, we are not so lucky. Check out the link for more details. I was going to put in a few quotes from the
article, but for some reason, the page wouldn't let me highlight any text to copy, and paste.

These are the religions that are exempt from having to buy health insurance; Amish, Muslim, Scientologist, and Native Americans.

What about the other Americans that are opposed to Obamacare? We can't apply to get Opt Out, that is "reserved" for the members of the named
religions.

Maybe I should rephrase the question: Can you provide any CREDIBLE citation, anything with an OUNCE of respect among ANYONE, especially something
that's not claiming demonstrably false lies (like 4 of your links claiming the Soros link, lulz)? The one link you provided, link 5 I believe, the
one about Kagan and the cases being there, is the only one that has any shred of verifiable information that supports their argument in any rational
world. FFS, the first link you posted is satire. You didn't notice that? They referenced bringing Steve Jobs back from the dead. Really.

Maybe I should rephrase the question: Can you provide any CREDIBLE citation, anything with an OUNCE of respect among ANYONE, especially something
that's not claiming demonstrably false lies (like 4 of your links claiming the Soros link, lulz)? The one link you provided, link 5 I believe, the
one about Kagan and the cases being there, is the only one that has any shred of verifiable information that supports their argument in any rational
world. FFS, the first link you posted is satire. You didn't notice that? They referenced bringing Steve Jobs back from the dead. Really.

That's fine, you can believe in Snopes if you like, I see doubt and so choose to not consider them as the be all and end all of what is true or
false. I am in general polite, curteous and down to earth person and do try hard not to offend, belittle or disparage anyone. Just because I choose
not to follow your Snopes God does not give you the right to address my posts or me in such a sarcastic or ascerbic tone nor is it justified and
indeed has nothing to do with the point the original poster was trying to make.
Glad I managed to brighten someones day, which is more than you have achieved.

Honestly, I didn't read but a few sentences in the article. I didn't find the link myself, a friend of my friend showed it to me. Not that I feel I
have to answer to any of you, I'm just being honest. For all those who like to be negative, just to make yourself feel better, I feel for you. Though,
If I would've known this was all false, I wouldn't have posted this thread in the first place. Also, don't for one second believe I'm dumb, or stupid.
For those who make these claims, you don't know me, and I could care less what you think. Too bad you couldn't be an adult about this, and simply
bring the false part to my attention in a mature way. So, thanks for bringing a smile to my face. It always makes me feel good to see how much more
mature I am than others. Grow up, and thank you to the ones that aren't just some little kids spewing emissions of toxic gas out of their head in the
form of an immature text, and speech in their real lives. Don't think I'm going to argue with anyone either, I'm above that. If this text irritates
you, so sad. Maybe next time you might be more mature about things.

Further more, the link supplies more evidence for this to be true. I don't see anywhere where it explains why this isn't true. The "False" text is
beside itself, and doesn't go into detail about what it is talking about. Read the article. If this isn't true, provide a link to support your
claims.

This is the first I'm hearing about the site Snopes not being credible, although seeing that link is the first time I've even seen that site. Anyway,
I have no more to say. I'm not on this site to argue. Just thought the story sounded interesting, and wanted to share. For those who have been
respectable, thank you. It's the good people like you that keep me on this site.

I've provided two more links that talk about this subject. Whether It's true, or not, I don't really care. All I need to know is that we are living in
the end times. Proof can be found everywhere. As a Christian, I'm used to hateful people, and know that the rest of my life will be difficult because
of my faith, and the times we live in. The hate cannot shake, or break me.

Some say this subject is true, some dis-agree. The real nature of Obamacare will come to the light though, so whether it is, or isn't true, the truth
will come out sometime. I'm not going to waste any of my time arguing over the matter. We were given free will, it's up to you how you choose to live
your life, and to choose what you believe.

In any case, I hope at least I can be a witness of my good faith, and kindness. I'm not perfect, and I know that, but I would rather have someone
striving to be their best, rather than being content with being normal, or mediocre. God speed, and good luck finding the truth, if that is truly your
passion.

Maybe I should rephrase the question: Can you provide any CREDIBLE citation, anything with an OUNCE of respect among ANYONE, especially something
that's not claiming demonstrably false lies (like 4 of your links claiming the Soros link, lulz)? The one link you provided, link 5 I believe, the
one about Kagan and the cases being there, is the only one that has any shred of verifiable information that supports their argument in any rational
world. FFS, the first link you posted is satire. You didn't notice that? They referenced bringing Steve Jobs back from the dead. Really.

That's fine, you can believe in Snopes if you like, I see doubt and so choose to not consider them as the be all and end all of what is true or
false. I am in general polite, curteous and down to earth person and do try hard not to offend, belittle or disparage anyone. Just because I choose
not to follow your Snopes God does not give you the right to address my posts or me in such a sarcastic or ascerbic tone nor is it justified and
indeed has nothing to do with the point the original poster was trying to make.
Glad I managed to brighten someones day, which is more than you have achieved.

I see, so when asked for something verifiable, you resort to emotional pleas and snarky insults. Point proven.

I don't have to justify anything to you. I don't blindly believe snopes.com. If you wish to debate Snopes validity then I suggest you do it in an
appropriate thread of which there are several here on ATS as this thread is NOT the place.
Snarky attitude? Perhaps you should look at how you address complete strangers in the first instance.

I don't have to justify anything to you. I don't blindly believe snopes.com. If you wish to debate Snopes validity then I suggest you do it in an
appropriate thread of which there are several here on ATS as this thread is NOT the place.

Then why did you bring it up?

Snarky attitude? Perhaps you should look at how you address complete strangers in the first instance.

Are you telling me that posting a claim with a source that then refutes that claim is not ridiculous?

Go play in the mud, sweetheart, the adults
have real issues to talk about.

- Your first link that you provuded as proof Snopes,com is a fraud was in itself a joke website.

- The second link was some guy claiming that snopes can't be trusted simply because it is run by a husband and wife team, rather than a bunch of
lawyers

- Your third link simply said "Snopes is wrong" yet gave nothing to back up that claim...

...I got tired after that and stopped clicking those meaningless links.

I'm not saying snopes.com is the be-all-end-all of whether an internet rumor is true or not, but they are one resource. To put it another way (and
to get back on topic), what reason did the OP give me to actually BELIEVE his assertion that Muslims are exempt from Obamacare?

I'm not dis-believing it simply because snopes.com says it's false, but at the same time I'm not going to blindly believe it, either, just because
the OP says it's true.

wow OP, that's an interesting evolution from your opening post to an outright debate about Snopes ... well done

personally, i have no opinion of snopes other than what a wasted effort of those who use it

as for the topic you'd like to discuss, perhaps some of these links might provide some insight.
yes, they are quite likely eligible for a religious exemption.
(it is yet to be determined - however, steps are progressing toward achieving such)

frontpagemag.com...
To be sure, [color=amber]the PPACA does grant a number of exemptions from the requirement to purchase the “minimum essential coverage.” (Whatever
that is — Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hasn’t yet defined it.) Prisoners, illegal aliens, and foreign nationals are
exempt. In addition, there is a religious exemption. Under Subtitle F, Part I, Section 1501—the individual responsibility requirement to maintain
minimum essential coverage—individuals must be “a member of a recognized religious sect” that doesn’t participate in Social Security.
According to a January 2011 Heritage Foundation WebMemo, they must pay no Social Security taxes and receive none of the benefits, in accordance with
Section 1402(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The religious exemption applies to any person who is a member of a “recognized religious sect or
division” with “established tenets or teachings” that would forbid that person from accepting public or private insurance. Thus the Amish, who
believe in taking care of their own elderly and don’t participate in Social Security, are exempt, as are Mennonites and Scientologists.
- snip -
Where do American Muslims stand regarding the individual mandate’s religious exemption? Under a strict interpretation of the Koran, which forbids
acceptance of public or private insurance, they are exempt under this loophole. However, since the great majority of American Muslims pay Social
Security taxes and receive Social Security benefits, they don’t qualify for the religious exemption. Nevertheless, PPACA rules offer a
situation where American Muslims could qualify for the religious exemption. [color=amber]If an individual is a member of a “health-sharing
ministry,” —a religious non-profit organization in which members contribute money to cover the medical expenses of those in
need—[color=amber] they are exempt from the requirement from the requirement to purchase insurance.

need more ?

litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com...
=3B15&key=c5ac964e24acf30d37c656b8c71ddc71
5 Under the heading "religious exemptions," the Act sets out two distinct categories of individuals who are exempt from the tax: those with a
"religious conscience" objection to insurance and [color=amber]those who are members of a "health care sharing ministry."

guess
which insurer is establishing such "ministries" in the US ??

does AIG ring a bell ??

www.thevoicemagazine.com...
t-activities-.html
According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing
the destruction of America using American tax dollars.

The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with
the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West,
including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory
Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations,
supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."
- snip -
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to
fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious
activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.

According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of
the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial
activities.

Maybe I should rephrase the question: Can you provide any CREDIBLE citation, anything with an OUNCE of respect among ANYONE, especially something
that's not claiming demonstrably false lies (like 4 of your links claiming the Soros link, lulz)? The one link you provided, link 5 I believe, the
one about Kagan and the cases being there, is the only one that has any shred of verifiable information that supports their argument in any rational
world. FFS, the first link you posted is satire. You didn't notice that? They referenced bringing Steve Jobs back from the dead. Really.

That's fine, you can believe in Snopes if you like, I see doubt and so choose to not consider them as the be all and end all of what is true or false.
I am in general polite, curteous and down to earth person and do try hard not to offend, belittle or disparage anyone. Just because I choose not to
follow your Snopes God does not give you the right to address my posts or me in such a sarcastic or ascerbic tone nor is it justified and indeed has
nothing to do with the point the original poster was trying to make.
Glad I managed to brighten someones day, which is more than you have achieved.

It's not that I blindly believe what snopes.com says, but they DID include the actual laguage of the legislation, and based on what I read, I could
see for myself that the OP's assertion that Muslims are exempt from Obama-care is completely false.

Again, I'm not saying this because snopes "said so". I'm saying this because snopes actually provided a copy of the legislation for me to read --
that's something the OP did NOT do.

So it is the OP who wants me to blindly believe something just because he says so, NOT snopes.

edit on 10/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.